In This Section
- Articles: Technical content presenting completed research and analysis or innovative practical design concepts or methodologies. Articles generally have between 3,000 and 10,000 words.
- Technical Notes: A technical note presents practical information, preliminary research results or innovative design techniques. Technical notes generally have fewer than 3,000 words.
- Discussions: Reader commentary on technical points in previously published content.
- Closures: Author responses to reader comments provided in discussions, published concurrently with the relevant discussion piece.
- Steel Structures Research Update: A column highlighting developments in strutcural steel research, written by Research Editor Judy Liu, professor at Oregon State University.
Submittals must be in English and must include references, as appropriate to the most recent AISC standards and publications available at the time of submittal. Submit your article to Margaret Matthew, PE, editor via email (firstname.lastname@example.org). Send a Microsoft Word file that includes the following information:
- page numbers and consecutive line numbering
- an abstract and keywords
- clear figures and tables, embedded within the flow of the text; color graphics are acceptable
- US customary units are the journal standard. If SI units are used, US customary units must be provided in parentheses. Rolled shape sizes in SI units must include an approximate US equivalent in parentheses.
- equations formatted using Mathtype, compatible addon for Microsoft Word.
- references formatted similarly to the examples shown below
- biographical information for each author: name, title, employer, business address, and work email address.
- designation of a primary author to receive correspondence regarding the submittal
Submittals without these elements or deviating excessively from the editorial guidelines outlined below may be rejected by the editor without the technical review. The most common problems with initial submittals include:
- references without citations or citations without corresponding reference
- mislabeled, unreferenced or missing tables, figures and equations
- poor grammar and style
- improperly formatted references. Examples of correct format below:
AISC (2010), Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 360-10, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
Brown, H.B. (2005), "How to Format References," Sample Journal Title, American Society of References, vol. 23, no. 9., pp. 12-25.
Materials accepted for publication may be edited for style and grammar. The editor may decline final submittals that require excessive copyediting for style and grammar.
- File Format: Compatible with Microsoft Word 2010.
- Fonts: Use Times New Roman font, 10 pt or 12 point type, and 1.5- or 2-line spacing. Use tabbed indents to indicate paragraphs.
- Headings: Differentiate between heading levels as illustrated in the examples below:
MAJOR HEADING (bold, all caps)
Minor Heading (bold, title case)
Second-level Minor Heading (bold italic, title case)
- Graphics: Figures must be legible. Use large, clear fonts in your figures. Use line weights that will remain visible at reduced size. Embed all graphics in the Microsoft Word file in the flow of the text. In addition, provide each graphic as an individual file (PDF, JPG, TIF). Raw AutoCAD DWG files are not acceptable. Use the following format to reference graphics in text: "As shown in Figure 3, ..."
- Equations: Embed equations in the flow of the text using Mathtype. Do not use the new Word 2007 or Word 2010 equation tools due to compatibility issues. Number equations sequentially. Use parentheses to set off the equation number from the equation itself. Use the following format to reference equations in text: "As shown in Equation 6, ..."
- Tables: Provide as individual Word or Excel files for very large tables. Images of tables are not acceptable. Report numerical results to three significant figures. Use the following format to reference tables in text: "...results are shown in Table 12."
- Footnotes: Avoid footnotes if at all possible Any footnotes should be noted clearly in the text with a superscript asterisk, dagger, or double dagger.
- Fractions: Use the forward slash: 7/8, 3/4, 1/8. For compound fractions, insert a hyphen for clarity between the whole number and the fraction: 1-1/8.
- Temperature: use the ° symbol: 20 °C, 100 °F. Do not use a superscript lower case letter “o”.
- Steel Shapes: Use the true × symbol in your font or find it in the Symbol font. Do not use a lower case letter "x".
Each author will receive three printed copies of the issue in which the accepted material appears.
Reviewers for Engineering Journal submittals are selected by the editor based on the subject matter. The pool of reviewers consists of experienced industry professionals who participate or have participated on AISC committees as well as individuals who have expressed interest in reviewing papers. In general, we strive to send reviewers no more than two papers annually. If you are interested in becoming a reviewer, please contact Margaret Matthew, P.E., email@example.com.
AISC provides a manuscript review form (PDF and Word Doc) as a template for reviewer feedback. AISC requests that reviews be returned within 30 days of receipt of the paper. Send completed reviews to Rachel Jordan at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Always reference the paper number in your review.
- Include your name. Reviews are single-blind, so reviewers will know the author names, but authors will not know the reviewer names. AISC will remove identifying information from your review before conveying them to the authors.
- Compose your review in a constructive manner.
- Use the "points to consider" below as a guideline for your comments.
- Hand-marked comments on printed pages, conveyed to AISC as PDFs, are acceptable.
- Include your rating of the paper (see below) and your recommendation for publication (see below). The Engineering Journal review board weighs reviewer recommendations heavily when considering papers.
Points to Consider
These questions may be helpful to reviewers when composing reviews.
Interest and Subject Matter
Does this paper present substantially new information or new treatment of existing knowledge?
Is the paper free of commercial implications seeming to advocate special interests?
Is the paper of potential value to practicing engineers and fabricators?
Is the paper of probable interest and likely service to readers of the Engineering Journal?
Format and Technical Information
- Does the title adequately describe the paper?
Is there an objective?
Is the paper both technically correct and professionally sound?
Is the paper clear and concise?
Are topics discussed in logical order?
Is the paper free from unnecessary duplication of material in text, tables, and illustrations? If no, indicate items that can be deleted.
Is the paper adequately illustrated (not too many or too few)? If not, what graphics are needed for a clearer presentation, and what graphics might be eliminated?
Are the conclusions justified and explained in the body of the paper?
Are there adequate references? Are all references relevant to the paper? Are all relevant references presented?
Guidelines for Rating Papers
- Excellent: The technical content of the paper is exceptionally thorough and well-presented. The paper presents no organizational issues and requires minimal editing.
- Good: The technical content of the paper is acceptable and the presentation of information is clear and concise.
- Average: The technical content of the paper is acceptable and the presentation of information is reasonably clear and concise. Style and editorial issues are minor and the paper may require minor author revisions.
- Below average: The technical content of the paper is of marginal quality and/or the presentation of information requires substantial rework. Style and editorial issues are numerous. The paper requires substantial reworking by the authors.
- Poor: The technical content of the paper is weak and/or the presentation of information is confusing or incomplete. The paper--and perhaps the underlying research--require substantial reworking by the authors.
Guidelines for Publication Recommendations
- Accept: The paper in its current format may be published with minor editing.
- Accept with comments: The paper should be published, but the authors should address a few technical issues prior to publication. The technical issues are minor and may be verified by the editor without further technical review.
- Revise and resubmit: The paper topic is suitable for publication, but it requires significant reworking prior to publication. The paper will be re-reviewed to ensure the comments have been adequately addressed.
- Decline: The technical content of the paper is not suitable for publication, the topic is outside of the scope of the journal, or the presentation and/or organization demonstrates minimal understanding of journal standards.
Submittals accepted for review will be acknowledged via email within 10 business days of receipt.
Reviews are single-blind: authors will not be told the names of reviewers. Each submittal is reviewed by at least three volunteer reviewers, selected by the editor for their expertise in the their fields. All reviews are considered by the Engineering Journal review board, comprised of AISC technical staff, before rendering a decision. The review board decision will be communicated to the primary author and accompanied by reviewer comments. This review process takes approximately 90 days.
The primary author must sign a copyright permission statement prior to publication. An excerpt of the statement reads as follows:
"You confirm, and AISC acknowledges, your ownership of the copyright to the Paper. You acknowledge and agree that AISC intends to include the Paper in a future issue of the Engineering Journal and that AISC will have all right, title, and interest in the Journal and the copyright to the Journal.
You also acknowledge and agree AISC shall have the right to use the Paper for any additional purposes, including publication in other compilations or singly, or in online database files. Therefore, you hereby grant AISC a perpetual, royalty-free, nonexclusive license to use, copy, display, and/or distribute the Engineering Journal Paper for any purposes and in any medium, including videotape presentations."
|Editor||Margaret A. Matthew, PE|
|Research Editor||Judy Liu, professor
Oregon State University
|Abbas Aminmansour||William Jacobs|
|Alex Andrews||Lawrence Kloiber|
|Jeffrey Berman||Roberto Leon|
|Brandon Bobo||Dan Linzell
| Josh Buckholt
| Robert Chmielowski
| Gregory Deierlein
| Mark Denavit
| Bo Dowswell
| Rick Drake
| Robert Driver
|Matt Eatherton||Thomas Murphy|
| Larry Fahnestock
|James Fisher||Jeffrey Packer|
| Patrick Fortney
|| Jeff Rabinovitch
| Karl Frank
||Gian Andrea Rassati|
| Chris Garrell
| Louis Geschwindner
|| Frank Russo
| Lawrence Griffis
|| W. Lee Shoemaker
|Gilbert Grondin||James Swanson|
|John Gross||William Thornton|
| Michael Grubb
|| Matthew Trammell
| Linda Hanagan
|| Chia-Ming Uang
|Allen Harrold|| Todd Ude
| Todd Helwig
|| Donald White
| Christopher Hewitt
|| Robert Whyte
|Christopher Higgins||Luke Woods|
| Nestor Iwankiw